I refuse to accept American version as 6th gen.
2025 Victory Day parade thread (workup, 3rd Sept)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
That's not the problem.
The issue is that CCAs don't really have generations to begin with.
American use a flying ammo rack with no radar. The Chinese version is shaped like a 6th gen aircraft and likely with the capability to boot.
Being shaped like a "6th generation aircraft" and being larger, does not make a CCA a "6th generation CCA".
It just makes it a higher end CCA than other smaller, lower end CCAs.
The reason I'm being specific about this is because the moment we start throwing around things like "generations" it opens up a massive can of worms around how to define the term relative to other systems in the same category.
Not to mention we technically have yet to see what the various new PLA CCAs look like under their tarps, so technically we do not yet know how they compare with Increment 1 USAF CCAs.
This one (plus at least one more) certainly doesn't shape like a (Chinese) 6th-gen aircraft either.
If you are using a jet generation to describe the capability of an unmanned aircraft then you're going from bad to worse, because you then need to first define what '6th generation' means for manned combat aircraft (which many people cannot even agree on), and then you have to transpose that over to mean what the equivalent would be for UCAVs/CCAs.
It's better just to omit the whole idea of "generations" to begin with for UCAVs/CCAs.
@TK3600 I think you mean you're using fighter jet generation to describe the corresponding timeline of the specific CCA platform being introduced to service. Rather than the capability since that is more loosely defined.
We should remember that CCAs are not tied to any generation of fighter or AEWC. A J-16 can be paired with multiple types of CCAs from low tier to high tier. These new CCAs are simply showing that the Chinese CCAs are considerably larger than the American CCAs being developed and tested. Not to mention, these Chinese CCAs are either in service already or close to reaching service. Smart money I think would say these high tier CCAs have been tested with the PLAAF to run evaluation long ago enough to show them publicly. The next generation of platforms are in the works.
We've all watched PLA and the patterns for the last decade plus and charted out the patterns of disclosure for long enough to know. Just fill in the blanks backwards and notice the patterns. These CCAs they're about to show have been flying with PLAAF for years. They are PLA units. They have been testing them for a while and running new doctrines with these networked platforms to develop overaching strategy, tactics and training. GJ-11 diverted from this pattern somewhat due to there being such a volume of promising low to high tier UAV/CCA and drone swarm tech that was being tested in the 2010s. Whatever happened to Dark Sword?
We should remember that CCAs are not tied to any generation of fighter or AEWC. A J-16 can be paired with multiple types of CCAs from low tier to high tier. These new CCAs are simply showing that the Chinese CCAs are considerably larger than the American CCAs being developed and tested. Not to mention, these Chinese CCAs are either in service already or close to reaching service. Smart money I think would say these high tier CCAs have been tested with the PLAAF to run evaluation long ago enough to show them publicly. The next generation of platforms are in the works.
We've all watched PLA and the patterns for the last decade plus and charted out the patterns of disclosure for long enough to know. Just fill in the blanks backwards and notice the patterns. These CCAs they're about to show have been flying with PLAAF for years. They are PLA units. They have been testing them for a while and running new doctrines with these networked platforms to develop overaching strategy, tactics and training. GJ-11 diverted from this pattern somewhat due to there being such a volume of promising low to high tier UAV/CCA and drone swarm tech that was being tested in the 2010s. Whatever happened to Dark Sword?
China now has low tier, attritable UAV/CCAs of similar vein to the US MQ-28 (Boeing), XQ-58 (Kratos) and YFQ-44 (Anduril) and also high tier CCA which used to be characterised by something like the Dark Sword concept (which may have reached some sort of evaluation in the past).
Most of the US CCA (by definition low tier) are also not quite as ready as the Chinese high tier CCAs. Chinese low tier CCAs seem to be running a slower program where the Chinese emphasis is on high tier CCA.
The difference is the US started showing its programs a decade ago and China pretty much only shows when weapons are active or at the very least, mature enough to be near service. These new CCAs China's showing now appear to be light to medium fighter aircraft sized. They would not be attritable so it's time to hurry up the low tier programs. Either that or China simply isn't showing the low tier ones publicly. Only the airshow stuff that either got rejected or deemed non-security risk to reveal. After all, attritable weapons can be considered strategically more important than the high tier, non attritables.
Most of the US CCA (by definition low tier) are also not quite as ready as the Chinese high tier CCAs. Chinese low tier CCAs seem to be running a slower program where the Chinese emphasis is on high tier CCA.
The difference is the US started showing its programs a decade ago and China pretty much only shows when weapons are active or at the very least, mature enough to be near service. These new CCAs China's showing now appear to be light to medium fighter aircraft sized. They would not be attritable so it's time to hurry up the low tier programs. Either that or China simply isn't showing the low tier ones publicly. Only the airshow stuff that either got rejected or deemed non-security risk to reveal. After all, attritable weapons can be considered strategically more important than the high tier, non attritables.
Well, to be fair, GJ-11 is mainly a strike UCAV rather than a CCA. It can likely be controlled by other platforms, but its main role is strike, while CCAs main purpose is A2A, but can likely drop some A2G munitions/loitering drones as well.